Trust.
We can count on online instruction to do a good job of educating learners.
“Physical proximity isn’t a precondition for good education.” That’s how George Veletsianos ends his opinion piece “The 7 Elements of a Good Online Course.” But I kind of wish he had led off with that. It contains in nuce the essence of the argument for online education: instructors and students do not have to share the same classroom in order to engage in productive teaching and learning.
Photo by DJ Johnson on Unsplash
Listicles are one of the worst things brought forth by the internet, but Veletsianos’s list has a couple of saving graces. He makes clear that there’s no need to continue the endless argument about online vs. classroom instruction; studies show they’re roughly equal in terms of efficacy. He presents his seven elements not just as a list of what to look for in an online course, but rather as a guide as to what we should be looking for in any course, be it online or in a classroom. Taken together they can function as a definition of “good education.”
According to Veletsianos and paraphrased below, a good online course
is informed by issues of equity and justice
is interactive
is engaging and challenging
involves practice
is effective
includes an instructor who is visible and active, exhibiting care, empathy and trust
promotes student agency
In earlier posts this week I examined how the critics of online education focused on the classroom as a near sacred space where amazing educational moments can occur. Veletsianos eschews this romantic view, instead sticking to some fairly solid principles that are easily understood even if they’re not always easy to implement. Those involved in online education know that online courses can contain each of those elements.
The list could be expanded by at least one point: a good online course has content that is relevant, challenging, and intellectually stimulating. This is partially covered by the third item on the list, but I would give content greater prominence. I would also revise the last point. In the article Veletsianos argues that promoting student agency is about redistributing power in the classroom, be it virtual or physical, but he provides some fairly mundane examples to illustrate the point (letting accounting students decide which company they might analyze for a project as opposed to having to follow the instructor’s suggestions).
Redistributing power should mean more than that, shouldn’t it? And if we’re serious about wanting to redistribute power in the classroom, we must remember the advice Peter Parker’s uncle gave him and redistribute responsibility as well. Those accounting students aren’t really developing that much agency. For that to occur, we need learner agency to lead to learner independence. We instructors need to teach our students not to need us, at least not the way they’ve needed us up till now, as crutches on which to lean and as signposts at every step along the learning path.
This is especially true at the tertiary level. We need to be able to trust our learners, and learners need to show that they can earn that trust. This requires that both learners and instructors rethink their roles in the classroom, wherever it might be.
For Fall Term 2020 this blog will be exploring issues informing education during a pandemic. It is appearing as part of a graduate seminar on online teaching and learning. You can read more about the seminar or see the other posts.
Post 19/60.
